Agenda item

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

16/07182/FUL and 16/07712/LBC- 8 The Forty, Cricklade, Wiltshire, SN6 6HR

16/07182/FUL and 16/07712/LBC- 8 The Forty, Cricklade, Wiltshire, SN6 6HR

The applicant Laura Lally and the agent Mike Wright spoke in favour of the application.

The planning officer introduced the report which was an application to extend and build upon a listed building. The applicant sought permissions for the removal of an existing single storey porch to rear of  the property and for the construction of a new two storey gable, and single storey flat roof with parapet wall. The extension would provide a dining room and play room at ground floor level, with a master bedroom with en-suite on the first floor. Pictures and diagrams were shown to the committee demonstrating the proposed plans, pointing out the variations in the proposed elevation, size, bulk and massing, compared to the existing build. The officer explained that conservation officers had identified potential harm to the historic fabric of the building by the substantial loss of original rear walls. Officers also considered the proposal would dramatically increase the size, bulk and massing of the listed building and be out of keeping with the character of the heritage asset.  

The Chairman invited Councillors to ask technical questions in response to which it was confirmed that, should permission be granted, the retention of existing landscaping at the front of the property could be conditioned to screen the extension from the road. In response to queries about parking provision it was noted that the Highways Officer had not raised any objections.

The Chairman invited public speakers to make representations, as detailed above. 

The local member, Cllr Bob Jones, spoke in support of the application and expressed concerns over the assessment of the application by the Conservation Officer.

In response to queries raised by the public and local member, the planning officer explained that in the Historic England listing of buildings not every heritage detail of a building was detailed and therefore the rear wall of the property could be considered as a heritage asset without a direct reference to this in the listing.

Officers also advised that they had previously indicated to the agent that a smaller extension would cause less harm the listed building however the application had not been reduced in scale.  In response to a statement from the applicant, the Planning Officer stated that the site was indeed outside of the Conservation Area and therefore the submission by the Conservation Officer was inaccurate. However it was highlighted that the application was recommended for refusal based on harm to the listed building rather than the impact on the Conservation Area.

The Chairman, moved the officer’s recommended which was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

During the debate that followed, members were sympathetic to the need for an extension to the property and supported the principle of a smaller extension to allow the listed building to be enjoyed. The Committee was however concerned that under this proposal a significant amount of the original wall would be lost and this would be contrary to Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Councillors discussed the visibility of the proposal from the road, the location of the property in relation to the entrance to the town and the proximity of a modern development to the rear of the property. On balance, members considered that there were no policy reasons to support permission. In reaching its decision the Committee understood that the site was not located within a Conservation Area and that refusal was to reflect the harm of the proposal on the listed building rather than its location in relation to a Conservation Area.

Resolved:

Planning Permission is REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, massing and design, fails to conserve the character or appearance of the listed building and is not otherwise justified by any wider public benefit. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Policy 57 and 58 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraph 131, 132, 134 and 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Listed Building Consent is REFUSED for the following reason:

2. The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, massing and design, fails to conserve the character or appearance of the listed building or and is not otherwise justified by any wider public benefit. The proposal is therefore contrary to S16(2) and 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.